Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Joe Benton in the Chair]

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

LGPI 17 Committee on Standards in Public Life

Clause 165 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14

Powers of National Assembly for Wales

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 212, in schedule 14, page 166, line 44, at end insert—
‘Matter 12.6
Provision for and in connection with methods of election and electoral arrangements.’.
Welcome back, Mr. Benton. I shall be brief because we have to make a lot of progress today.
The schedule relates to the powers devolved to the National Assembly for Wales and on pages 165 and 166 of the Bill is a list of additional powers and changes to powers. The amendment would add an additional power transferred to the National Assembly for Wales that relates to the delegation of methods of election and electoral arrangements for local government in Wales. At the moment, the Assembly and the Administration in Wales are competent to propose changes, but they have to be signed off here at the Westminster Parliament. Bearing in mind the huge surge of democracy that took place in this building last night, I hope that the Government see fit, particularly remembering the devolutionary words of the Ministers in this Committee, to agree that the amendment should be added to the list of powers, thus giving the Administration and the Assembly in Wales the competence to make the same changes that have been made in Scotland and which would be very much of a piece with the devolutionary atmosphere in the Bill.

Angela Smith: It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Benton, this fine morning. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment. It is interesting how the word “devolution” is sometimes bandied around in Committee and the different interpretations that are given to it.
The amendment would enable the Assembly Government to bring forward proposals for the National Assembly to legislate on methods of election and electoral arrangements for local government in Wales. The UK Government are committed to using UK Bills to confer new powers on the National Assembly if it is appropriate to do so. The Assembly Government have asked that we take the opportunity of this Bill to bring forward proposals in respect of local government in Wales, but they have not sought the power that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has asked us to give. Devolution is a matter that the Assembly Government should raise first. It would not be right for the Committee to propose something that has not been requested by the Assembly Government. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Stunell: On the grounds that we live to fight another day, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 14 agreed to.

Clause 166

Exercise of functions by local councillors in England

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 178, in clause 166, page 118, line 36, leave out ‘senior executive member’ and insert ‘whole council’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment
No. 179, in clause 166, page 118, line 36, after ‘arrangements’, insert
‘by majority resolution of the whole council’.

Andrew Stunell: The amendment relates to who should be authorised to delegate power to ward councillors. Should it be a senior executive member as the Bill states at present or should it be the result of a decision made by the whole council as set out in the amendment? Given the power as it is, senior executive members might be a lot more reluctant to devolve power than the council collectively and, in fact, the Government’s wishes might be frustrated. There would be more flexibility and more devolution if the matter were for discussion and decision by the whole council.
I am sure that all members of the Committee understand the realities of power and local government. In 80 or 90 per cent. of all decisions, it is likely that the council will follow the wishes and direction of the executive members. However, it seems proper for the council as a whole to have the opportunity to override an executive who are excessively centralist or unwilling to release power or to devolve decision making. The Minister has just said that devolution can be used in many ways. Obviously that is true, but the amendment is about ensuring that there is internal devolution or broader democratic oversight of the devolution inside councils. I hope that the Under-Secretary will feel minded to accept our amendment.

Angela Smith: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman twice in one day, but I may have to do so. I hope that when I explain the reasons why, he will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
In speaking to the amendment, it may aid the Committee if I also say something about what the clause does. At this point, I would like to talk about what we are considering and explain what is intended by the empowerment of councillors for which the Bill provides.
Clause 166 is part of a strategy we have discussed many times during the course of the Bill. It enables councillors to be more visible to the electorate and to act more visibly. As we have discussed before, it is about being champions of the local community—front-line councillors who take the opportunity to effect positive change in their areas. The clause as it stands allows local authorities to empower individual members to discharge functions on behalf of the authority, but only to the extent that they relate to their own ward or division. It will be the job of the authority, discharged either by a senior executive member or, where appropriate, the full council, to determine the scope of the delegations. The arrangement to which the clause refers covers the methods to be used by councillors in exercising the empowerment that they are given by the authorities, as well as the scope. The clause provides for the Secretary of State to exclude specified categories of function by order and to limit the manner or the circumstances in which local authority arrangements can apply. Hon. Members will accept that there are many local authority functions that would be quite inappropriate to delegate to individual councillors.
We are talking about relatively straightforward issues. The proposal for the Secretary of State to limit by order is a significant constraint on the innovation. We need to work very closely with the Local Government Association and others to define it. We need to consult widely on laying an order before Parliament before coming to a final decision. Hon. Members will be aware that the clause dovetails with clause 92. It enables councillors to discuss matters themselves in the community concerned. It would be inappropriate and a waste of council resources always to refer such matters to overview and scrutiny.
Reading through yesterday’s edition of my local paper, I found an example which, I think the Committee would agree, would be a matter for a councillor with those powers. An 81-year-old lady living in Noak Bridge in Basildon had an intruder in her sheltered accommodation home. She asked the council to fit locks on the windows. The council’s response was, “We have not got the money for the locks, it is not in the budget. However, if you buy them yourself we will fit them.” That is an example of a situation in which a local councillor, using a small delegated budget, could buy the locks and arrange for them to be fitted without going through overview and scrutiny. The power is therefore limited. We expect that most authorities will want to make such arrangements themselves. Although it is a relatively minor power, it has major significance to the constituent who is on the receiving end of that support from the local councillor—or lack of support from their council. The power is a backstop—an extra provision to help local residents in a situation in which local council services have not worked well.
Another example is fly-tipping. A local resident has made repeated calls to a council to clean up an area that has been repeatedly fly-tipped. A local councillor, however, might be able to move things along more quickly, or start again through the official channels if they were not able to get action from the council. The first step would be for the council to speak to the service provider. When that does not work, there has to an additional recourse in which a councillor—many hon. Members on the Committee have been councillors themselves—can cut through the bureaucracy and get something done much more quickly. However, it is not for the Government to tell local authorities what those arrangements should be. In the two examples I gave, a small budget might be made available to councillors for a function, or a councillor might be given the opportunity, in limited circumstances, to place priority orders for the work of council contractors. Again, that will be for individual authorities to decide.
It is worth saying that it is not the Government’s intention to try to force front-line councillors into an executive role that they do not want.

Andrew Stunell: Perhaps the key comes in the Under-Secretary’s last phrase. I do not disagree with what she said about the desirability of local councillors having the opportunity to intervene in the direct way she describes, but the amendments are not about that; they are about the inhibitions that can be placed on such interventions, and whether a councillor’s budget and the decision to devolve will be at the behest of an executive member or of the whole council. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will address that issue.

Angela Smith: Patience is a virtue—I was coming to that in my very next sentence, but I thought it was worth setting out exactly what the clause seeks to do. With his experience of local government, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that in 2000, the separation of executive and front-line councillors was defined by legislation. The legislation provided that most council decisions were taken by a small number of highly visible, high-profile councillors—the executive or cabinet, as those groups were called in some areas. That made it easier for the public to identify clearly the councillors responsible for decision making. Council executives make the majority of day-to-day decisions—any function of the authority is the responsibility of the executive unless specified otherwise by regulations. Certain council functions are not under the direct authority of the executive, as specified by regulations. For example, decisions on development control and licensing are both functions for which a full council committee is responsible, and a full council makes budget decisions.
Under clause 40, when a function is an executive function, the executive can confer or delegate it to an individual councillor. When a function is a function of a committee or a full council, it will be for those bodies to delegate. It does not seem right for a body that does not have a responsibility for a function to delegate it to someone else. Clause 166 will allow the executive or the authority, depending on which of those has the responsibility for the function concerned, to empower an individual councillor. Although devolved powers are important, we would not want powers such as the budget, which is a function of an entire council, to be placed with an individual councillor. I hope that that explanation satisfies the hon. Gentleman—I can see him pondering it now—and that he will withdraw the amendments.

Andrew Stunell: It is always disappointing to get a rebuff and I have had two in 10 minutes from the Under-Secretary. I understand the point she made, but I cannot say that I am satisfied. Nevertheless, I beg to ask leave the withdraw the amendment.

Amendment withdrawn.

Clause 166 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 167

Exercise of functions under section 166: records

Amendments made: No. 213, in clause 167, page 119, line 32, leave out ‘100C’ and insert ‘100E’.
No. 214, in clause 167, page 119, line 33, leave out ‘100CA’ and insert ‘100EA’.
No. 215, in clause 167, page 120, line 5, leave out ‘100CA(2)’ and insert ‘100EA(2)’.
No. 216, in clause 167, page 120, line 5, at end insert—
‘( ) In section 41 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (evidence of resolutions and minutes of proceedings etc)—
(a) in subsection (2A)(a), after “that authority,” insert “or a member of that executive”;
(b) in subsection (2A)(b), after “as the case may be,” insert “by the member of that executive or”;
(c) after subsection (2A) insert—
“(2B) Subsection (2C) applies to a record if—
(a) it records a decision made or action taken by a member of a local authority or of a precursor of a local authority in exercise of a function of the authority or precursor by virtue of arrangements made under section 166 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, and
(b) it is required to be made by regulations under section 100EA of the Local Government Act 1972.
(2C) If a document which purports to be a copy of a record to which this subsection applies bears a certificate—
(a) purporting to be signed by—
(i) the proper officer of the local authority, or
(ii) a person authorised in that behalf by that officer or by the local authority, and
(b) stating that the decision was made or the action was taken by the member of the local authority on the date specified in the certificate,
the document shall be evidence in any proceedings of the matters stated in the certificate and of the terms of the decision, or nature of the action, in question.”’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Clause 167, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 168

Amendments relating to capital finance and accounting practices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Robert Syms: The clause seems restrictive about what a local authority can do. Proposed new section 21(1A) of the Local Government Act 2003 states:
“The Secretary of State may issue guidance about the accounting practices to be followed by a local authority, in particular with respect to the charging of expenditure to a revenue account.”
I am interested to know the reason for the change to the 2003 Act. Will the Minister explain it? It need not be a long explanation.

Phil Woolas: Good morning, Mr. Benton. I will endeavour to explain the reason briefly, although I think that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it is sometimes difficult to be brief about local government finance and, in particular, capital financing.
If you will allow me to do so, Mr. Benton, it may be helpful for me to take the opportunity to draw to hon. Members’ attention the letter that I wrote to you and the other members of the Committee, enclosing information on the amendments that will be introduced on Report to limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s power to direct proposals for unitary authorities. I gave that commitment and I wanted to record that I have fulfilled it.

Michael Fabricant: He is buying time.

Phil Woolas: No, I am not buying time. I have the explanation and I am fulfilling the obligation that I gave to the Committee in putting it on the record, following the agreement with the Local Government Association.
The answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Poole is that the clause, as he will see, contains three separate provisions, all relating to part 1 of the 2003 Act. Hon. Members will recall that that legislation was used to bring in the prudential capital finance system, which allows local authorities to borrow to pay for capital projects without Government consent, so long as they can afford to service the debt from their own resources. That system has been widely recognised in local government as a success. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport will remember it well. It has been one of the major changes in local government finance.
Clause 168(1) is needed because the new capital finance legislation replaced earlier statutory provisions. The latter are referred to in subsequent pieces of legislation that remain in force, but all those references were rendered obsolete by the 2003 Act, which is a common result of new laws. As is usual, the 2003 Act contained a power enabling the cross-references to be updated by secondary legislation, and in 2003 such an order was made, containing all the consequential amendments that were then thought necessary.
The need for further such changes has recently been identified and it is possible to deliver them through this Bill, which is why I have included clause 168(1). As the hon. Member for Poole will know, it amends section 74 of the Housing Act 1988, which provides for the transfer of local authority housing to housing action trusts. In dealing with payments between the parties, it relies on terms used in the former local government capital finance legislation. Those provisions now need to be expressed in the terminology of the 2003 Act.
That means that this is a tidying-up clause, because we did not spot the need for the changes last time. In fact, that is slightly unfair to my team. This is a consequence of terminology. We are bringing up to date matters that have been referred to before. I hope that the explanation is satisfactory and if I were to say that my speaking note goes on for another seven pages, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would consider that.

Robert Syms: I am sorry I asked—[Laughter.]

Phil Woolas: I have been learning that all night. It took me to about midnight to get to that one.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 168 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 169

Contracting out

Phil Woolas: I beg to move amendment No. 235, in clause 169, page 121, line 36, at end insert—
‘(oa) an authority established by an order under section (implementation of proposals by order) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (joint waste authorities);’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 26—Proposals for joint waste authorities in England.
Government new clause 27—Consultation.
Government new clause 28—Implementation of proposals by order.
Government new clause 29—Membership of joint waste authorities.
Government new clause 30—Consequential amendments.
Government new clause 31—Joint waste authorities in Wales.
Government new clause 32—Interpretation.
Government amendments Nos. 236, 237, 239, 242, 244 and 246.

Phil Woolas: I have long believed that any Bill passing through the House should have a final schedule to be known as the schedule for common sense. These proposals are common sense, long overdue, have been requested by local authorities and they will improve service delivery and save the taxpayer money.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Benton, for allowing me to table these amendments. In all honesty, if I had had time, I would have included them in the published Bill. However, because of time pressure and the desire to get things, I wanted to wait but I am glad that I have been able to introduce the amendments in Committee.
Waste is one of the top pressures on council tax. The increase in waste, as a result of a more prosperous and changing society, is one of the main inflationary pressures on local government, as identified by the joint work that we have done with the Local Government Association. I have been pressed on this point by the Association of District Treasurers for many months and, indeed, years.
These new clauses allow districts and counties to enter into joint arrangements for the collection and disposal of waste. London boroughs already do this between them, by joining up—of course, London boroughs have the waste and recycling responsibility—into four London waste authorities. Metropolitan authorities have the opportunity, and the largest waste authority in the country is the Greater Manchester waste authority, which involves 10 local authorities working together to achieve efficiencies in procurement and savings.

Michael Fabricant: Two or three years ago, Lichfield district council was top. I am not talking about the parish being the largest parish in the country—I was slapped down and told it was Weston-super-Mare—but I do know that Lichfield district was the best recycler in the country. It has been held back, to some degree, by liaison with Staffordshire county council. This measure will help us go from second place, which is where I think we are, back up to first place.

Phil Woolas: I was with David Smith, the leader of Lichfield district council yesterday afternoon. [ Interruption. ] Indeed, he is a Conservative who chairs the West Midlands Local Government Association very ably. I can confirm that what the hon. Member for Lichfield says is true. I can also confirm from my conversations with the leader that the mace is safe; the hon. Gentleman need not worry, but he makes a good point.
Lichfield has done very well but, broadly speaking, the authority areas that recycle the most are the better-off areas. That is true irrespective of the political persuasion of the council. The districts have been asking to be able to work with counties for some time. We had a group report from the high-performing local authorities, of which I believe Lichfield was a member. These are the three-star and improving and four-star councils that group together to advise the Government on how to make improvements in these matters. Their report, in support of this proposal, identified efficiency gains of approximately £150 million that would result simply from knocking down this legislative barrier to being able to set up joint working authorities.
 The separation of decision-making powers and funding streams into two-tier areas inhibits the efficiency of the waste management function. Additionally, not all local authorities have the optimum size to deliver the efficiencies. It has long been the case that the argument for unitary authorities has rested on the example of districts collecting rubbish and counties disposing of it. As part of our permissive regime, we are trying to encourage joint working as well as considering unitary proposals.

Tom Levitt: If the measure is likely to enable Lichfield to improve its performance, will it also help the Liberal-Conservative controlled High Peak council to rise from near the bottom of the recycling league?

Phil Woolas: I expect that it will, and I expect that if I answered to the contrary, I would get a steaming letter from my hon. Friend. He is right. We are trying to facilitate better working together across boundaries and between tiers of government. The financial pressures on waste and recycling identified by the councils result from the huge need for capital investment in recycling and other measures identified by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs strategy document. Not all of that, incidentally, should or will fall on local authorities. However, it is the local authorities’ responsibility. There are significant financial reasons why the proposal is beneficial.

Philip Dunne: As in so many other matters during this part of the debate, I rise to highlight the merits of Shropshire as a pathfinder in many areas of local government. We are a four-star county council, and we have established with the district councils a Shropshire waste partnership, which began its deliberations some six years ago. Had the legislation existed at the time to facilitate what is proposed in the clauses, it would not have taken the districts and county six years to achieve joined-up waste collection and disposal, which is due to come into force at the end of this year.
I support the Government’s objective but, contrary to the Minister’s point a moment ago that the measure is necessary to demonstrate the importance of unitary as an appropriate model, we in Shropshire have secured agreement between the two tiers—

Joe Benton: Order. I am sorry, but this is becoming a lengthy intervention. It is beginning to sound more like a contribution.

Phil Woolas: My argument is not an argument for unitary. My point was that the desirability of bringing together collection and disposal has been used as an argument for unitary. It is the most common argument. Because the Government have a genuinely permissive approach, it makes sense if we are not imposing unitary authorities—and the hon. Gentleman knows that we are not—to facilitate better joint working between districts and counties, particularly where they have asked for it. The head of steam behind the measure is very strong indeed. Ken Thornber, leader of Hampshire county council, made strong representations with his districts on that point, as have other county local authorities.
 New clause 27 will introduce a requirement on local waste authorities to consult relevant electors and other interested persons in their area on a draft of their proposal. New clause 28 will allow the Secretary of State to implement proposals for joint waste authorities.
New clause 29 provides the requirements for membership of joint waste authorities. Only members of the constituent local waste authorities will be able to be members of joint waste authorities. A newspaper headline on the proposal in the Daily Mail, instead of describing it as a common-sense measure, said something like “Blair to chop elected authorities of rubbish responsibility”, implying that we were establishing a quango that would not be accountable. Of course, the waste authorities, like existing waste authorities, will be led by elected members, albeit elected members from different areas. Perhaps the journalist had had a heavy lunch and was looking for some knocking copy. I assure Committee members that only members of the constituent local waste authorities can be members of that new joint waste authority.
 If the proposals are accepted, we would require a number of consequential amendments to be made to ensure that joint waste authorities are considered as the relevant authority for specific functions in the Bill and in other legislation. Those changes are set out in new clause 30 and amendments Nos. 235 to 237 and No. 242.

Bob Neill: As the Minister knows, the London borough of Bromley has a good record on recycling and is top of the league in London, particularly if garden waste is excluded. Perhaps the Minister could introduce a clause to enable West Ham United to get up the league table. That is a tall order, but I was hoping that he would work on it.
My specific point relates to an issue that I mentioned during the evidence hearings. Will there be anything to prevent local authorities in different counties from forming a joint waste authority? One can think of circumstances, albeit unusual ones, in some of the big conurbations where it may make economic and environmental sense for people to combine across county boundaries. That is not how we tend to think in local government terms, but it may be sensible. I should like reassurance that, if there is agreement among all the authorities, there would be nothing to inhibit them from doing so.

Phil Woolas: The Government have issued guidance to Alan Curbishley, the manager of West Ham, advising him to use a mobile phone when driving, because I have been told that that is the only way he will get three points. I apologise, Mr. Benton, because I should have declared an interest as a Manchester United season ticket holder. We tried to assist West Ham’s negotiations with the Olympic delivery body to ensure that the club was able to move into a new stadium. My rationale was that it would then compete more with Chelsea and Arsenal, which would benefit Manchester United.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is a big and desirable yes. Authorities are already coming together through contracting arrangements. For example, the Park Royal industrial estate in north-west London—the largest in western Europe—spans the boundaries of three London boroughs and has contracting arrangements for shared waste disposal and recycling. I mentioned previously other examples of districts, particularly in rural county areas, coming together to co-operate on revenue and benefits. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the waste authority, there is a case for what he suggests—either on the edge of a conurbation with a rural area or between districts spanning county boundaries.
Authorities that do not share a geographical boundary are increasingly coming together, where it makes sense for them to work together, in respect of expertise, geography, or for other reasons. For example, Tameside metropolitan borough council, a four-star council, and Camden council in London co-operate on processing housing benefit claims for Camden residents. Unison’s claim for London weighting for employers in Tameside was one of the most innovative that I have seen. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right. Such joint working, leading to efficiencies, breaks down barriers, stops local authority boundaries being the be-all and end-all, and allows change through a commissioning regime that will allow savings to be made. It is ridiculous that there are different arrangements for the procurement of vehicles, and so on, when the taxpayer can benefit from better working together.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is yes and I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to put my case.

Alistair Burt: With his joke, the Minister made an early bid for the champagne moment of the day. We welcomed the joke—it was very well put. I wondered whether he would follow it up with further knowledge of West Ham and the great Bobby Zamora, and repeat the well known chant, “When the ball’s in the goal, it’s not Shearer or Cole; it’s Zamora.” [ Laughter. ] That was perhaps a lame effort by me to steal the champagne moment of the day, but we will come back to that later. [ Interruption. ] One just knows certain things about football. But I am from Bury—I am a Reds and Shakers fan.
My purpose in rising is to welcome the new clauses. Conservatives have been pressing the case to allow such co-operation.

Andrew Stunell: I want the Committee to be aware that Stockport County have broken a 119-year-old league record for winning matches and not conceding goals. I would not want the moment to pass, as football teams seem to be the flavour of the moment.

Joe Benton: Order. We should move away from football soon. Each party has had a little go, but it might be as well to return to the amendment under discussion.

Alistair Burt: We shall not try your patience any further, Mr. Benton, on such a lovely morning.
My party welcomes the new clause. Indeed, we have been pressing for some time for the introduction of such a measure. We appreciate that it is permissive and that it allows authorities the opportunity and option to work together, which is exactly the right thing to do.
I thank the Local Government Association for its briefing. We appreciate its work in informing the Committee and keeping us up to speed through its briefings. I wish to raise a couple of points that it made and get the Minister’s comments on them. The LGA states that it is
“not convinced that it is necessary for the bill to provide the Secretary of State with powers to dissolve Joint Waste Authorities.”
It said that it would seek a brief explanation
“of the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might take such action”
and use such powers. It states:
“The LGA is keen that the final drafting of the bill puts local authorities firmly in the driving seat when a proposal for a Joint Waste Authority is formulated. Central government must not be prescriptive in making modifications and we would like assurance that any duty to consult is proportionate.”
I would be grateful if the Minister would briefly tackle those two points, if he can.
 While the Minister is finding the information, I would add that he was right to say that waste is a significant and growing factor for local authorities and their budgets to deal with. Many councils make the point that increased duties are placed on them by the Government, but that it is sometimes difficult for them to find resources to meet ever-more onerous requirements. There plainly is complete complementarity of interest between the Government and local authorities in doing their best on this score. I would like to congratulate Bedfordshire county council, which has made significant efforts to improve its recycling position. Its committee, under the leadership of Councillor Tom Wootton, has done very well.

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman refers to councils’ recycling. Would he join me in congratulating the Conservatives on Sutton council on deposing their deputy leader because he did not find time to recycle at all? Is that something that the hon. Gentleman would recommend other local authorities do?

Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman is tempting me not to a champagne moment but to a suicidal moment in welcoming the deposing of any Conservative council on any council. On this occasion, my briefing is not sufficiently extensive for me to give him an adequate response. He has put the matter on the record in his own way, and we should be content to leave it at that.
Just to reiterate, Conservative Members are pleased with the new clauses, and we hope that, where it is appropriate and where it would be effective, joint waste authorities come into being.

Andrew Stunell: We, too, welcome the provisions and the way in which they have been introduced. In responding to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, however, could the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State’s residual powers, which the LGA has queried, are a response to the situation in Greater Manchester? For a number of years, it was a matter of great frustration that the waste authority’s constituent councils were required to reach a unanimous decision to change the charging regime. It was widely recognised that the regime operated contrary to public policy in that it charged those who recycled most, rather than those who recycled least. That has now been put right, but there was a logjam in the decision-taking process, and I should be very satisfied if the Minister could reassure me that the power that he holds, to which the LGA objects, would prevent such a logjam in future.

Phil Woolas: On that last point, I shall need to write to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with what he says. As he knows, my council is the secretariat for the Greater Manchester waste authority, and—it is surprising what one learns as a local MP—the procurement contract into which it is entering is the largest public sector contract in Europe. It relates to rubbish, bins, collection and recycling and is hugely important to the public and the taxpayer. If I may, therefore, I shall give him the details that he needs in a letter because I do not know the answer to his question.
I think, however, that I can go some way towards addressing hon. Members’ other questions. On modification, a proposal made to the Secretary of State that might require minor alteration would be fettered because the Secretary of State could not create a joint waste authority for an area that was different from the area specified in the proposal or establish a joint waste authority to discharge functions that were not specified in the proposal.
On abolition, new waste authorities might be created through the amalgamation of waste authorities that had come forward under the new proposal. If three districts came together across county boundaries, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested, and the new authority was a success and wanted to expand, it would need to make a new proposal, and the old one would need to be abolished. In exceptional circumstances, an authority might simply have imploded and might not be working, and its poor performance would mean that it would have to be got rid off and that new arrangements would have to be put in place. The provisions are intended as a backstop should an authority seriously fail. Those are the circumstances that are envisaged under the new arrangements, and I hope that that answers the point in the LGA briefing.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 169, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 11

Appointment of auditors
‘In section 3(6) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) (appointment of firm as auditor) for “each of its members” substitute “the appointment provides that the audit may be conducted only by a member or employee of the firm who”.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

Inspection and disclosure of personal information
‘(1) Section 15 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) (inspection of documents and questions at audit) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) for “about a member of the staff of the body whose accounts are being audited” substitute “within the meaning of subsection (3A) or (4)”.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Information is personal information if—
(a) it identifies a particular individual or enables a particular individual to be identified; and
(b) the auditor considers that it should not be inspected or disclosed.”.
(4) In subsection (4), for the words from the beginning to “if it” substitute “Information is personal information if it is information about a member of the staff of the body whose accounts are being audited which”.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13

Appointment of auditor to carry out agreed audits
‘(1) Section 29 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18) (agreed audit of accounts) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “undertake the audit of” substitute “appoint an auditor to audit”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) An auditor appointed under subsection (1) may be—
(a) an officer of the Commission,
(b) an individual who is not an officer of the Commission, or
(c) a firm of individuals who are not officers of the Commission.”.
(4) In subsection (2), after “the Commission” insert “, the auditor”.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 17

Certain references to code of conduct to include default code
‘(1) In section 37 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (local authority constitution), after subsection (3) insert—
“(4) In relation to an authority whose members and co-opted members are subject to mandatory provisions by virtue of section 51(5)(b), the reference in subsection (1)(c) to the authority’s code of conduct for the time being under section 51 is to the mandatory provisions which for the time being apply to the members and co-opted members of the authority.”
(2) In section 52 of that Act (duty to comply with code of conduct), after subsection (4) insert—
“(5) In relation to a relevant authority whose members and co-opted members are subject to mandatory provisions by virtue of section 51(5)(b)—
(a) the references in subsections (2) to (4) to the authority’s code of conduct for the time being under section 51 include the mandatory provisions which for the time being apply to the members and co-opted members of the authority, and
(b) the references in subsections (3) and (4) to any time after the authority have adopted a code of conduct under section 51 for the first time are to be read as references to any time after the coming into force of section (certain references to code of conduct to include default code) of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.”
(3) In section 54 of that Act (functions of standards committees), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) In relation to a relevant authority whose members and co-opted members are subject to mandatory provisions by virtue of section 51(5)(b), references in subsection (1)(b) and (2)(b) and (c) to the authority’s code of conduct are to those mandatory provisions.”’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 18

Politically restricted posts: consequential amendments
‘(1) In section 2 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42) (politically restricted posts)—
(a) in subsections (1)(g) and (2) after “section 3” insert “or 3A”;
(b) in subsection (5) after “local authority” insert “in Scotland and Wales”;
(c) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) It shall be the duty of every local authority in England in performing their duties under this section to have regard to such general advice as may be given by virtue of section 3B below by the Secretary of State.”
(2) In the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) —
(a) in section 61(2)(a) (power to require attendance at Assembly meetings) for “to 3” substitute “, 2 and 3A”;
(b) in section 68(1)(b) (disqualification and political restriction) for “and 3” substitute “and 3A”;
(c) in section 70(7) (terms and conditions of employment) for “and 3” substitute “and 3A”.’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 19

Power to change date of local elections to date of European Parliamentary general election
‘(1) In section 37 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) (ordinary days of local elections in England and Wales), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) is subject to any order under—
(a) section 37A (local government areas in England), or
(b) section 37B (local government areas in Wales).”
(2) After that section insert—
“37A Power to change date of local elections to date of European Parliamentary general election: England
(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that in a year in which a European Parliamentary general election is to be held—
(a) the ordinary day of election of councillors for counties in England, districts and London boroughs,
(b) the ordinary day of election of councillors for parishes, and
(c) as respects Authority elections, the day on which the poll is to be held at an ordinary election,
shall be changed so as to be the same as the date of the poll at the European Parliamentary general election.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may make provision under all of paragraphs (a) to (c) or under one or more of those paragraphs.
(3) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised, on each occasion, in relation to a single year.
(4) Before making an order under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission, and
(b) such other persons or bodies as he considers appropriate.
(5) An order under subsection (1) may make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision or savings.
(6) Where the Welsh Ministers make an order under section 37B, the Secretary of State may by order make such consequential provision in relation to elections in England as he thinks fit.
(7) The powers under subsections (5) and (6) include power to make—
(a) different provision for different purposes;
(b) provision disapplying or modifying the application of an enactment or an instrument made under an enactment.
(8) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(9) A statutory instrument containing an order made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
37B Power to change date of local elections to date of European Parliamentary general election: Wales
(1) The Welsh Ministers may by order provide that, in a year in which a European Parliamentary general election is to be held, the ordinary day of election of councillors for—
(a) counties in Wales and county boroughs, and
(b) communities,
shall be changed so as to be the same as the date of the poll at the European Parliamentary general election.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may make provision under paragraphs (a) and (b) or under one of those paragraphs.
(3) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised, on each occasion, in relation to a single year.
(4) Before making an order under this section, the Welsh Ministers must consult—
(a) the Electoral Commission, and
(b) such other persons or bodies as they consider appropriate.
(5) An order under subsection (1) may make incidental, supplementary or consequential provision or savings.
(6) Where the Secretary of State makes an order under section 37A, the Welsh Ministers may by order make such consequential provision in relation to elections in Wales as they think fit.
(7) The powers under subsections (5) and (6) include power to make—
(a) different provision for different purposes;
(b) provision disapplying or modifying the application of an enactment or an instrument made under an enactment.
(8) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(9) A statutory instrument containing an order made under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.”
(3) In section 3 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (time of ordinary elections), in subsection (3), after “section 37(2)” insert “or 37A”.’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 243.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Andrew Stunell: I should like hear from the Minister the reasons for this provision. When I originally saw the draft new clause, I thought it said “shall” and not “may”, which would have concerned me. Bearing it in mind that this was the position the last time we had European elections, I wonder why the Secretary of State needs such a power. It already exists. I would like the Minister to explain.

Alistair Burt: I read the clause with the same interest, and I wonder whether the Minister will enlighten us as to whether it will become a regular feature of elections. Are the Government going to say that it will be a fixed arrangement that, when European elections are to be held, the local elections will automatically be moved? If that is the case, we might as well know it.
However, a subsidiary matter is causing great interest in Bedfordshire. The people of Biggleswade are asking why it is being done that way round. Why is it that the long-standing tradition in our country of having local elections on the first Thursday in May should be changed for the benefit of elections to the European Parliament? People in Biggleswade say to me, “Mr. Burt, why, in the ember days of his premiership, does the Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, not go to the European Commission and say, ‘How about you moving your European parliamentary elections to the date on which we traditionally vote in Biggleswade—the first Thursday in May?’?” I have to say that there is some force in that argument.
 As well as the Minister enlightening us as to whether it is to be standard practice that, every five years, we should accept the date of the local elections being moved to coincide with European parliamentary elections, will she also say whether the Government have made representations to the European Commission and the European Parliament on changing the date of their elections in order to coincide with our local and district elections in the county of Bedfordshire?

Angela Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for their wise and interesting comments. It is always helpful to know what the voters of Biggleswade think about any particular issue, so I am grateful for that.
New clause 19 and amendment No. 243 will amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales with the power to change the day of local and Greater London authority elections by order, so that they can take place on the same day as European Parliament elections. Prior to the last European Parliament elections, in 2004, we took the power, in the Local Government Act 2003, to combine them with other 2004 elections. However, that power applied only to the 2004 elections, and this is a recurring issue, particularly in England where there are local government elections in most years.
The next elections to European Parliament are due to take place in June 2009. In that year, local elections for all English county councils are due to be held on 7 May. We seek to give the Secretary of State the power to combine such elections without the need for primary legislation by making an order to combine elections that fall due at around the same time.
As the Government said in 2003, we have taken a number of measures since 1997 to improve participation in the democratic process. Our proposal then to combine the 2004 local, GLA and European Parliament elections was in line with other measures that focused on voter convenience and assisting the voter. We wanted to ensure that voting was convenient and not a hassle or difficulty, and we wanted to remove as many barriers as possible. That is why we thought it right to hold the 2004 elections on the same day, so that people did not have to vote twice in six weeks.
Such a change might be valid on any number of occasions, as having only a few weeks between two election dates creates a significant risk of there being a very low turnout for both polls or either one of them, particularly the second one. We all want to ensure that as many people as possible participate in the democratic process. It is worth noting that turnout at the 2004 European elections was significantly higher than in 1999. It rose from 24 per cent. to 38.5 per cent. Research for the Electoral Commission’s follow-up report on the European elections found that combining the European Parliament elections with local elections and the mayoral and assembly elections in London was an important factor in improving turnout.
There is a presumption that combining local and European elections, on whichever date, is generally the right way forward, but that would depend on the circumstances, and it would be inappropriate to say that it was automatically the right thing to do. It might depend, for example, on the length of the period between the first Thursday in May—the traditional day for local elections in England—and the day set for European elections. Combining polls has advantages, but I readily admit that it also has disadvantages. With combined elections, there is always a concern, particularly among local councillors, that local elections will be subsumed and will not get the priority or recognition that they deserve.

Tom Brake: Will the Under-Secretary clarify whether there is a limit on the duration between local council and European elections that the Government would not want to go beyond when ensuring that such dates coincide?

Angela Smith: I am not sure that I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s question. Will he expand on it?

Tom Brake: Clearly, it might be appropriate to combine elections that are due to take place in May and June, but it might not be appropriate to combine them when the European elections are due to take place at a later date. Combining elections that are due to be five or even 12 months apart would have a bigger impact.

Angela Smith: That is exactly why we want flexibility. That is also why I say that combining election dates might not be appropriate in all circumstances. It would be a matter to be decided by order after discussion and consultation. There are many cases in which it might not be appropriate. It is important that in local elections, local issues are to the fore in any campaign. That should be taken into account.

Alistair Burt: I am not sure that the Under-Secretary will like my intervention. Does this power mean that the Secretary of State can move the date of an election by order? When there is discussion as to whether it is right to move a particular election date, will there be a debate and a vote in the House, or are we agreeing to a process that will preclude that discussion and simply allow the Secretary of State to make the decision?

Angela Smith: It would be for Parliament to decide by order. The Secretary of State could not make the changes without putting an order before Parliament. There would probably need to be consultation and discussion. I do not think that any Government would move election dates lightly. The hon. Gentleman will recall that prior to the 2005 general election—

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.